3"It is more important to allocate money for immediate, existing social problems than to spend it on long-term research that might help future generations."
Whether we should invest our money in urgent problems or long-term research focusing on the future generations is a complex issue. Some people hold the opinion that current requirements should firstly be satisfied while others believe the opposite one. However, I believe both of them are of the same importance, thus neither one is to be ignored.
First, existing social problems in some aspects have more priorities than the future ones, hence we should take them into our consideration immediately. One the one hand, existing problems have revealed the darkness of society and the dissatisfaction of citizens nowadays, of which must be aware by government in order to maintain the stability of society, while problems our descendent might face would not harm the current regime, thus we don't need to be so hurry. Take China for example. Several years ago, when the reform in China require the public-owned corporation to fire overbundant workers, the problem came that how would these umemployed workers feed their family while at the same time there is no income at all. In this case, what the government mainly focusd on that time is not invest money in the alternate energy , though important, not urgent, for the future generations but in social security that might greatly soothe the firece dissatisfication of these people. One the other hand, may be no one would continue to work when he notices that the property he creates has nothing to solve the existing social problems but invest in long-term research irrelevant to their interests. It is weird if we still ask for people to sacrifice themselves under the gorgeous slogan: Everything for the future! And that situation is akin to some communism countries' behavior, which mainly cares about the over-all success while neglects the basic needs of people. These regimes are overthrown by the angry citizens and results might be the same once we pay to much attention to the problems ahead.
Second, while we are discussing we should allocate money in some aspects, I am not denying in other aspect, invest money in long-term research rather than urgent problems would benefit us more. In some situations, where there are not current solution for the existing social problems, such as stealing and unemployment, we would not gain any satisfying fruit even we allocate all we have for them currently. However, once we cast our net forward and put money in long-term researches, things may look different. Stealing and unemployment are the results of social inequity and personal disadvantage. To solve the problems, money should be allocate to research for a better structure, so that the poor and rich may not have so deep a gap, thus obejectively eliminate the possibility of stealing. On the other hand, research for a better educational system, which would more effectively and wildly provide individuals knowledge from both morality and technology, should also begin with the sufficient financial support, on the purpose that high standard of morality would prevent an individual from subjective stealing, while mastering some kind of technologies could make finding and sustaining a job more possible. In this case, though we have nothing to do with the problems nowadays, we might eliminate them in the not far seeing future, if we invest more money in the long-term research to find a perfect solution.
In sum, due to the reasons mentioned above, considering that either one has more priorities in receiving finacial support in some specific aspects, I believe they are of the same importance. However, when there meets a conflict between the two, the best way for us is to allocate more money for the one better benefitting us, while invest less in the other one, that's, find a balance in them.作者: imong 时间: 2004-11-12 22:30:37
我觉得写得还算不错的样子呢
提几个问题
为啥开始的on the one hand都给写成了one the one hand？
In this case, what the government mainly focusd on that time is not invest money in the alternate energy , though important, not urgent,
在这里能意识到用插入语值得表扬 不过这样一来修饰的位置好像并不规范 而且用important but not urgent而不是用though似乎更舒服